If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In the case of Mindi, who looks to be an obvious match, can they not compare dentals..especially since Mindi would of at a min. had records from orthodontist?

Either they were unable to obtain records from Mindi's orthodontist, or they were unable to locate the orthodontist at all.

Originally Posted by kpdx

1st Q: As I understand it, height is based on comparing measurements of specific bones with established height chart. Is this standard practice, or does it vary based on decomp? What is the general practice of ME when determining height?

Normally, with skeletal remains, they compare the length of the femur (or other available long bone) to a height chart. The standard heights would also depend on the gender and race of the person.

Originally Posted by kpdx

2nd Q: A recent doctor visit identified that my own medical records had me at a shorter height than I am (in my 30s, so obviously not a result of a growth spurt). I always assume a margin of error in a MP's height...but how does LE treat it? Are heights self reported by family, or are they based on medical records? Are medical records accessible to LE when investigating MP? Over the years, I have seen rule outs based on a difference of a few inches when otherwise the match looks good....

I suppose LE uses whatever is available. It could be medical records, or a driver's license, or if nothing else is available, an estimate provided by family.

I hate to see rule-outs based on height, because I've seen many instances where after a person is identified, the UID height differed from the MP's listed height.

I was looking on NamUs and an UID was listed with almost no information. It just had race, date found and where found. No height, weight, age guess- nothing. Does that happen often, or is it a mistake? What do you do about this?
I was trying to match a missing person up and I felt like a hit a brick wall. Newbie here so I am hoping this question is in the right place.

I was looking on NamUs and an UID was listed with almost no information. It just had race, date found and where found. No height, weight, age guess- nothing. Does that happen often, or is it a mistake? What do you do about this?
I was trying to match a missing person up and I felt like a hit a brick wall. Newbie here so I am hoping this question is in the right place.

Correction- there was an age estimate- but hard to figure out anything when there is no height/weight, how old bones were etc.

I was watching the National Geographic channel last night, and they were doing a story about the famous National Geographic magazine cover photo of the Afghan Girl with the amazing green eyes, taken at a refugee camp in 1984. For years, the photographer who took that photo had wondered what became of the girl and went great lengths trying to find out what ever became of her. After showing the photo to people all over Pakistan and Afghanistan and encountering numerous false leads, he finally located her, married with children and living in Pakistan.

To verify that they had located the same woman, they sent her photo to facial recognition experts at the FBI and the NCMEC, and by analyzing the detail in their irises, they verified with over a million-to-one probability that it was the same woman, despite the fact that her eyes seem to have darkened somewhat with age.

In ruling out one of the false leads, the FBI facial recognition expert mentioned something that I thought to be relevant to our efforts. He said that 99% of the time, a small mole on someone's face will not disappear. It will remain there for life, or grow larger.

He had originally pointed out a spot on the right side (her right, not ours) of the girl's upper lip, and didn't see a corresponding spot on her older photo. But after looking at other photos taken of the girl at the same time, it turned out to be just a spot of dirt on her face. But you can see other spots on her forehead and below the right corner of her mouth in the "then" photo that match up on her "now" photo.

So we should keep this in mind when when comparing MP photos to UID postmortem photos. If you see even a tiny mole on the face of the MP that doesn't appear on the UID, you can be reasonably certain that it is a non-match. But you should be certain that it truly is a facial blemish, and not just a speck of dirt.

I was reading some info about the large amount of open cases of MPs from the Yakima Indian Reservation and connected murder investigations from 80s-90s. The local newspaper used the Freedom of Information Act to acquire files from the FBI on the victims.

Given the enormous amount of MPs reported to be in FBI files (39,000 according to LE in Snohomish County http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...t=64324&page=5) which is substantially larger than even those CarlK has diligently compiled, I am wondering if anyone has attempted to file a FOIA request to obtain the list FBI has given LE.

I'm not well versed in this sort of process, but it seems like there is some kind of precedent.

I was speaking this morning with a detective who is quite involved with NamUs and CODIS, and he told me something about CODIS that I did not previously know.

CODIS will not accept DNA profiles on a missing person unless that person is suspected of being a victim of a crime. However, NamUs will accept DNA profiles on all missing persons, as long as there is a MP report on file with a LE agency in the U.S..

Missing children who are classified as runaways and persons who are believed to have disappeared voluntarily or as a result of an accident are not eligible for CODIS.

I've been keeping a spreadsheet of all missing persons listed in Charley Project, plus cases in the other sites (NAMPN, DoeNet, and NamUs) that aren't in Charley. The spreadsheet includes basic info (e.g., gender, age, DLC, DOB, height, etc.), and includes about 13,000 names.

This week, I've added an extra column to include the NamUs MP # for all MP cases from NamUs. I am in the process of reconciling those cases to the casefiles from other sites to determine which cases are in NamUs and not in other sites, and vice-versa.

In doing so, I've discovered a very troubling problem. There is a very large number of instances where the Dates of Last Contact as indicated in NamUs don't agree with those listed in Charley and the other sites. I would guess that there are DLC discrepancies for about 10-20% of NamUs cases.

For the more substantial discrepancies of several months or years, I've done further research to see which is correct (if possible). I found a few errors that were made by Meaghan at Charley Project, but for the vast majority of the discrepancies, the error was in NamUs. There is a very surprising number of instances where the MP Report Date was entered as the DLC.

In most cases where I was able to conclusively prove which site was wrong, I sent out an e-mail to ask them to correct the error. But in cases where the difference was only a week or two, or cases where I couldn't determine who was wrong, I had to let it go, and used the earlier date on my spreadsheet. There are far too many errors to send out an e-mail for every error that I spot.

So when entering search parameters in the NamUs UID database looking for matches to a specific MP, I suggest that you set your lower date limit for a month or two prior to the MP's Date of Last Contact ("Date LKA").

... or if your are entering search parameters in the NamUs MP database looking for a match to a specific UID, you should set the upper date limit for a few months after the UID was estimated to have died.

I've been keeping a spreadsheet of all missing persons listed in Charley Project, plus cases in the other sites (NAMPN, DoeNet, and NamUs) that aren't in Charley. The spreadsheet includes basic info (e.g., gender, age, DLC, DOB, height, etc.), and includes about 13,000 names.

This week, I've added an extra column to include the NamUs MP # for all MP cases from NamUs. I am in the process of reconciling those cases to the casefiles from other sites to determine which cases are in NamUs and not in other sites, and vice-versa.

In doing so, I've discovered a very troubling problem. There is a very large number of instances where the Dates of Last Contact as indicated in NamUs don't agree with those listed in Charley and the other sites. I would guess that there are DLC discrepancies for about 10-20% of NamUs cases.

For the more substantial discrepancies of several months or years, I've done further research to see which is correct (if possible). I found a few errors that were made by Meaghan at Charley Project, but for the vast majority of the discrepancies, the error was in NamUs. There is a very surprising number of instances where the MP Report Date was entered as the DLC.

In most cases where I was able to conclusively prove which site was wrong, I sent out an e-mail to ask them to correct the error. But in cases where the difference was only a week or two, or cases where I couldn't determine who was wrong, I had to let it go, and used the earlier date on my spreadsheet. There are far too many errors to send out an e-mail for every error that I spot.

So when entering search parameters in the NamUs UID database looking for matches to a specific MP, I suggest that you set your lower date limit for a month or two prior to the MP's Date of Last Contact ("Date LKA").

... or if your are entering search parameters in the NamUs MP database looking for a match to a specific UID, you should set the upper date limit for a few months after the UID was estimated to have died.

I, too, have noticed discrepancies in the "date last known alive" dates on NamUs, Charley Project and Doe Network. While I attribute some of that to human error in entering the data, I think a lot more of it is because in many cases families, friends, etc. aren't sure when the missing person was last seen.

I recently read of a woman whose date last known alive was listed as a date after her body was actually recovered.

So my tip to those of us who routinely search these databases, always question the date last known alive if you find a match that is good otherwise.

Last edited by CarlK90245; 06-16-2012 at 03:30 PM.
Reason: Added Quote box to bring post to current page

I am new to this site. If we think we have a match do we just email the address listed with the file of the deceased? Or should we post on this site and see what others think?

I like to bounce it off of others here first to see if I've missed something. Then I'll email the address listed. But please note that you have written them on the thread so another member doesn't send it also.

Could an admin/mod please private message me. I would love to add an unidentified person to this forum but its saying I do not have permission and it is definately not already on here. Thank you, nd sorry for posting here just have no idea where else to ask